On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 07:01:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I'm inclined to apply the patch with binary-coercibility
> >> adjustments and not try to turn RECORD or RECORD[] into
> >> full-fledged polymorphic types. It's not immediately clear what
> >> the use of that would be anyway.
>
> > ...meaning, that you would not be able to create a function taking
> > generic 'record' as a parameter?
>
> Well, you've never been able to do that, although for many of the
> PLs there doesn't seem to be any very fundamental reason why not.
> But I was actually wondering about something beyond that: should we
> have the equivalent of the polymorphic-type behaviors for
> composites? That would mean rules along the line of "all records
> mentioned in the call and result are the same composite type" and
> "record[] means the array type corresponding to whichever type
> record is".
+1 :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
